Fracking moratorium fails in California despite strong public support

The California Senate killed a bill that would enact a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing - or fracking - in the state. The ban’s proponents blame lobbying by the oil industry, which spent nearly $1.5 million in three months fighting the bill.

The proposed legislation, introduced by Democratic state Sens.
Holly J. Mitchell and Mark Leno, would have prohibited all well
stimulation treatments (which includes fracking) until a
scientific study evaluated all health and environmental effects
for both onshore and offshore drilling. It would have also forced
the state’s Natural Resources Agency to create fracking
regulations.

The bill was defeated when four of 24 Democrats joined all 12
Republicans senators in voting “nay,” while three other Democrats
abstained, preventing the moratorium from gaining a majority. The
loss comes even though two-thirds of voters in the Golden State
said they supported the ban, and a majority of voters said they
would be “more likely” to vote for a legislator who
supported it as well, a recent survey on the issue by Fairbank,
Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates found.

“This is the second time a house of the California state
legislature has soundly rejected a moratorium on a routine
practice that’s been deemed safe repeatedly,” Dave Quast,
California director of Energy in Depth, an oil industry-backed
group, told Reuters.

He said fracking in California creates jobs, increases state
revenue and lessens the state’s dependence on oil imports.

The oil lobby, led by the Western States Petroleum Association
(WSPA), spent nearly $1.5 million in California during the first
three months of 2014 alone, Truth Out reported. Altogether the
industry spent more than $56 million on lobbying the California
Legislature from 2009 through 2013. Californians Against Fracking
estimated that oil lobbyists spent $15 million solely on
defeating the bill.

"The overwhelming majority of Californians who support a
moratorium on fracking will not stop fighting fracking and the
public health risks, earthquakes, and climate change linked to
this toxic extraction process," Zack Malitz of
California-based progressive group Credo told Reuters.

Fracking opponents called the four Democrats who voted to block
the ban “shamelessly unprincipled,” according to
Reuters. The
Sacramento Bee noted that the four are known to be
“business-friendly.”

Republican lawmakers, who voted unanimously against the
moratorium, said the state approved a fracking study last year
with the understanding that the oil industry’s activity would be
closely monitored until the study is complete, the Los Angeles
Times reported.

“In Kern County, we have been safely fracking for
decades,” GOP Sen. Andy Vidak told the
Times. “[The moratorium] would lead to a heavy reduction
of jobs.”

Jobs may not have been the only economic loss the state would
have faced with a ban. According to a state Senate Appropriations
fiscal summary of the bill, a fracking moratorium would cost
California “at least in the mid-tens of millions” of
dollars in lost revenue. However, the state will already be
missing out on projected fracking revenue because of downgraded
estimates of the Monterey Shale’s productivity.

Last Thursday, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA)
cut
the Monterey Shale oil formation estimate by 96 percent to
just 600 million barrels from 13.7 billion, due to a lack of
extraction technology. That amount of oil is only enough to meet
U.S. oil consumption for 32 days, Think Progress reported.
Supporters argued that the new estimates were precisely why bill
needed to pass.

“There's not going to be a giant oil boom in California's
near future, and the state, as a result, is not going to add 2.8
million new industry jobs or see its tax revenue increase by
$24.6 billion annually, as oil and gas interests had
claimed,” Robert Gammon wrote in an
East Bay Express op-ed. “In fact, there's likely not
going to be a boom at all. And so, if the state were to enact a
ban on fracking now, it probably would have little to no impact
on California's economy.”

“As such, there's no reason for the governor and lawmakers to
continue to back a controversial practice that involves shooting
massive amounts of water and toxic chemicals deep into the earth
and has been linked to groundwater and air pollution and to
earthquakes,” the Express editor argued. “In short, it's
long past time for state lawmakers and the governor to catch up
to the general public. California doesn't need to be
fracked.”

Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) could halt fracking via executive
order, but Reuters notes, “The odds of that happening are
slim.” Brown has said multiple times, including earlier in
May, that fracking is good for the state. In the meantime,
localities, including the city
of Beverly Hills and Santa Cruz
County, have enacted bans. Other areas of the state are
mulling regional bans as well.